Cases

You are currently browsing the archive for the Cases category.

I’m wondering who’s using ICLR online and how they’re getting on? The service launched 18 October to a list of over 350 delegates that was “fairly select and exclusive due to the nature of our Council”.

Before the event no doubt there was lots of direct mail and email promotion by ICLR to its customer list and I understand there were posters up in Chancery Lane and Temple tube stations for the benefit of the legal Londoners who toil there, but I struggled to find any pre-launch promotion online. I missed the “announcement” on the ICLR blog as it was somewhat indirect – a link buried in a post titled BabyBarista – Dress Down Friday. Indeed BabyBarista is fronting their online marketing campaign with a series of sponsored posts. Apparently the Grauniad had “roadblock banner adverts” up, whatever those are (they sound dangerous), but I missed them too.

In fact the pre-launch online announcement I first came across was on InPublishing, relating to Catalysts who developed the service using the NXT4 platform.

I’m curious also why there has been almost zero feedback online since about the service – particularly as anyone can sign up for a free trial. I did and was quite impressed, but I’m not a real user able to evaluate it meaningfully. Surely this is a groundbreaking alternative to the expensive Wexis services for the individual barristers and small chambers?

Props to Ruth Bird on Slaw for being the first to say something about it.

I’d like to hear from those using it – on a trial basis or in earnest. Don’t be shy.

It is ironic that BAILII, which came into being to free the law, has been called out recently for restricting access to the law.

A Guardian editorial in September criticised the status quo in relation to the publication of court judgments and called for more open access. In so doing BAILII came across as the villain of the piece rather than the saviour of free law which most lawyers know it to be. Nevertheless, the editorial did raise valid questions about free and open access to case law which deserved answering. I asked Sir Henry Brooke, retiring chairman of the BAILII trustees, for his response to those questions and the resulting article is now published online on the Society for Computers and Law site.

Why does the MoJ release judgments through a contract with BAILII? Why does BAILII not allow search engines to index its judgments? Who owns copyright in judgments? Why does BAILII forbid reproduction on other sites? Sir Henry answers all these questions in some detail. But we are left with the question: Is free law enough – are we not entitled to open law? And if we do believe in open law, how do we get there?

UPDATES:

(1) See now the expanded post in the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

(2) See also Judith Townend and Lucy Series response to the Open Data consultation.

Published in the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers, July 2010.

Free case law is old hat now. The House of Lords posted its first judgment on the web in 1996 and BAILII “freed the law” in 2000. But how far have we come since then? This article sums up the current position.

Public sector provision

The Supreme Court at www.supremecourt.gov.uk publishes its Decided cases in PDF with accompanying press summaries.

The Current cases section provides full details of ongoing appeals and News and publications provides information on latest judgments, future judgments and permissions to appeal. You can search the judgments via the general site search or via the Decided cases search. RSS feeds of latest judgments are not available.

An archive of judgments of the former House of Lords from 1996 to 2009 is published at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm. The only search facility available is the general Parliament site search.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at www.jcpc.gov.uk publishes its Decided cases from Nov 2009. The design and functionality of this new site is almost identical to that of the Supreme Court (see above), providing also information on Current Cases and News and publications. Privy Council judgments from 1999 to August 2009 and selected judgments pre1999 are published at www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page31.asp

Inexplicably, HM Courts Service at www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk does not publish judgments of the England and Wales courts. It simply provides a note that judgments from the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, from the Administrative Court and the divisions of the High Court, selected by the judge concerned, are available for free by the good graces of BAILII.

The Scottish Courts Service at www.scotcourts.gov.uk publishes Court of Session, High Court of Justiciary and Sheriff Courts decisions from 1998. Access is via either a keyword search or a structured search. RSS feeds of recent cases are provided.

The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service at www.courtsni.gov.uk publishes its Judicial Decisions from 1999. You can search via the general site search or the judgments search. RSS feeds of latest decisions are not available.

The Tribunals Service site at www.tribunalsservice.gov.uk is a convenient gateway to all the tribunals sites, each of which publishes its own decisions. There is some commonality in the features of these databases.

BAILII

BAILII provides access to the most comprehensive set of British and Irish primary legal materials available for free and in one place on the internet. BAILII includes over 80 databases covering 7 jurisdictions and in excess of 200,000 searchable documents.

Scope of case law

BAILII publishes most significant judgments from the courts of the four jurisdictions of the UK and from the courts of Ireland since 1996, receiving regular feeds from the courts. Coverage of historic judgments prior to 1996 is limited but growing.

In 2003 arrangements were made for all the substantive judgments of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal and the Administrative Court to be posted on BAILII. Judgments on permission applications and other preliminary applications are only published there if a judge so requests. The number of judgments from the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and the other Divisions of the High Court has been steadily increasing.

There is still a restriction on the number of English cases from divisions of the High Court which can be added to the BAILII database, arising from the fact that the shorthand writers who transcribe judgments which have been given verbally (as opposed to those handed down on paper) own the copyright in the transcribed version of the judgment. This prevents the judgment being added to the BAILII database without the consent of the shorthand writer. BAILII, being a free website, has no funds with which to acquire a licence to copy and display these transcripts.

BAILII continues to press for the system to be changed so that all judgments may be freely available. A large number of transcribed judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Administrative Court for the period July 1996 to August 1999 were kindly provided by the official shorthand writers Smith Bernal. All handed down English Court of Appeal cases decided since July 1996 should be on BAILII.

Handed down first-instance decisions of the England and Wales and Northern Ireland High Courts are generally only provided to BAILII where the judge giving the judgment indicates that they are of sufficient interest to be made available for publication on the internet.

Decisions of the Irish Supreme Court and High Court are reasonably comprehensive since February 2001.

BAILII has few Northern Ireland cases decided prior to 2000.

BAILII has few Scottish cases decided prior to 1999.

Full coverage of House of Lords and Privy Council cases commenced during 1996.

Supreme Court cases are included from inception in 2009.

Historic judgments

The OpenLaw project undertaken by BAILII during 2007–2009 was funded by JISC and aimed to support legal teaching in collaboration with academics, librarians and special interest groups such as the Society of Legal Scholars. Through review of subject syllabi, BAILII identified, scanned, converted to text and published over 2,500 judgments that are important in the core teaching areas of law. The OpenLaw project itself is now closed.

BAILII continues to negotiate with legal publishers for the freeing up of more historic judgments for publication. In 2009 the Scottish Council of Law Reporting gave BAILII permission to publish approximately 600 Scots law judgments that are frequently cited in judgments and are important in the core teaching areas of law.

Not on BAILII but on its sister site CommonLII is a database of the English Reports (1220-1873), based on data provided by Justis. The reports at www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR are scans in PDF but are full text searchable, for the first time giving the world free access to the very depths of common law legal history.

Functionality

The basic BAILII browse is by jurisdiction, then by court, and then alphabetically or by year / month / alpha.

For case law BAILII offers a standard simple search, selecting All databases or a particular jurisdiction, a Case Law Search or an Advanced Search (which is somewhat less advanced than the former!).

Advanced searches require use of Boolean terms and connectors. Whilst Boolean searches are familiar ground for information professionals, others will need to mug up on them. Most lawyers used to Google searches will be sorely disappointed if they just whack in a few keywords.

Results can be ordered by Title, Jurisdiction, Relevance, Date, or Date (oldest first). Relevance is according to Boolean criteria and the context of hits is not shown, so again, all but the professional searcher will feel somewhat at sea.

RSS feeds

BAILII does not publicise the fact that it offers RSS feeds. However, selecting the Recent Decisions option on the left menu www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html and changing the extension to rss, gives us the URL for the BAILII Recent Decisions feed:

This feed is not terribly helpful as it is one large feed in court-by-court order, matching the Recent Decisions web page. However, useful derivatives for individual courts have been created by me and several others using Yahoo Pipes – see pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/search?q=BAILII.

LawCite

An important addition to the LII stable of websites is LawCite at www.lawcite.org – an international case citator from the good people at AustLII, also accessible via BAILII. You can search LawCite for a standard citation or by various criteria.

The LawCite database is generated on an entirely automatic basis from all the LII databases with no editorial input and includes a fairly complete collection of all common law cases cited in the past decade plus most of the important uncited decisions before this.

From the Law Librarian Blog on a one and a half hour interview with Google engineer Anurag Acharya on the Law Librarian Blog Talk Radio looking into Google Scholar Legal Opinions and Journals:

Google designed this for people who know how to use Google at the very least, and to be successful with mining cases with that level of experience. No one will see something like a citator beyond the “How cited” tab. The panel clearly hungered for a more definitive free tool that matches Shepards or KeyCite. Don’t expect anything like that soon, if at all. Acharya pointed out some technical difficulties in doing some of the things Lexis and Westlaw does for a case opinion database. Google is not going there. He also alluded at one point to agreements he has in place that prevent him from doing certain things, such as creating an API to embed case information in third party sites. This suggests that whoever is vending the text [Westlaw?] see the raw case law as a commodity. The real value to a vendor is the analytical tools they provide. The contract essentially seems to be that someone provides the text at a reasonable price provided Google does not compete on features.

Further comment on 3 Geeks and a Law Blog.

Update: comment on HeinOnline Blog.

Thanks to Jennie Law for pointing out that the new UKSC needs to get its publishing act together.

It’s been in existence for almost four weeks now and has the most advanced court technology in the world. It delivered its first judgment on 14 October, yet no cases yet appear in the Decided Cases section. As Jenny discovers, you can currently find these only under News and Publications by clicking, under Judgements, the Read the full story (sic) link.

And not a nice orange RSS button in sight.

Just goes to show that the best technology in the world is no magic web delivery bullet. A modicum of thought for the end user is required.

CaseCheck, headed by Stephen Moore, has since late 2007 been delivering case summaries from the Scottish Courts and EAT in a Web 2.0 environment.

Now, in a tie-up with Law Brief Publishing, CaseCheck has added 4,000 England and Wales and EU case summaries from Law Brief Update. Law Brief Publishing was set up by Tim Kevan, barrister and BabyBarista. Tim was impressed by Stephen’s dynamic and innovative approach and views the arrangement as a great way to give Law Brief Update’s extensive back catalogue of case reports a new audience.

The good people at AustLII have been working on a citator for common law cases and the fruits of their labours can now be checked out at LawCite (Alpha).

LawCite is an international case citator and is the first product of a 3 year Australian Research Council funded project to research into automated systems for citation recognition. The LawCite database is generated on an entirely automatic basis with no editorial input and includes a fairly complete collection of all common law cases cited in the past decade plus most of the important uncited decisions before this. Please note that this is an Alpha version. It is still being built and refined and is being released for public comment only.

As well as using the search form, you can link directly to a LawCite result via a URL link in the following form
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=[1963] 2 All ER 575

Recent standard neutral citations for UK cases don’t seem to be supported yet. According to Joe Ury, BAILII is currently working on its contribution to the project.

Also just launched is the CommonLII database of the English Reports (1220-1873), based on data provided by Justis. The reports are scans in PDF but are full text searchable.

Both projects were developed as part of an Australian Research Council Linkage grant concerning improvements to online case law involving seven industry partners including four courts and tribunals and two legal publishers.

CaseCheck

Here’s a great new Law 2.0 initiative.

CaseCheck, headed by Stephen Moore, offers case summaries from the Scottish Courts and EAT, delivered latest-first and also categorised, with RSS feeds. Selected committed users author the summaries; all users can add comments.

Does that sound like a familiar formula? Yes, it’s built with an open source blog platform. And it’s all free – just register for full use.

Our mission at CaseCheck is to alter the way in which legal information is shared. We are creating a community based resource where everyone can have the opportunity of demonstrating their knowledge and skill in their area of law. You never know who might be reading your comments and opinions – potential clients, employees and employers are out there.

(Hat tip: Delia Venables)

The recent accessions page on BAILII shows that a number of leading judgments from the 17th century onwards have recently been added. These are the first fruits of the BAILII/JISC Open Law project which aims to identify significant older judgments to which reference is regularly needed in legal education.

JISC is the Joint Information Systems Committee of the UK further and higher education funding councils.

You’ll also be able toaccess these leading cases using Lawfinder.

ICLR is in the process of morphing its Daily Law Notes service into WLR Daily.

“Welcome to the new look case summary service from ICLR that replaces the Daily Law Notes. The service remains the same; providing free 24 hour access to summaries but in a new easier to use format.”

What this, in fact, appears to provide is somewhat less than the Daily Law Notes service. See for example the July Index. Online summaries are provided for cases that have not gone on to be published as a Weekly Law Report yet. Where they have been reported – no online summary; just an order form for the paper copies.

« Older entries